Korean J Urol.  2007 Oct;48(10):1027-1034. 10.4111/kju.2007.48.10.1027.

Comparative Study of the Results of Electromagnetic (EML Dornier Compact Delta(R)) and Electroconductive (ECL, EDAP-Sonolith Praktis) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotriptors

• Kim YH
• Kim HJ
• Oh JS

• KMID: 2139734
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2007.48.10.1027

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of two shock wave energy sources; the newer electromagnetic lithotriptor(EML, Dornier Compact Delta(R)) and electroconductive lithotriptor(ECL, EDAP-Sonolith Praktis) that were used for treatment of the urinary calculi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From January 2004 to October 2006, 614 patients were treated with EML. From January 2000 to October 2006, 936 patients were treated with ECL. Following lithotripsy, a plain abdominal film was taken 1 week after each session to determine if there were residual stones and assessed the need for retreatment. Success was defined as no residual stones. We analyzed the site and size of stones, success rate, mean session, mean treatment time, causes of failure and complications.
RESULTS
The success rate was 95.9% for EML compared to 93.6% for ECL (p=0.048). The success rate was decreased for 20mm or larger stones. The treatment mean session wasn't different but the total treatment time was significantly longed for EML(58.5+/-27.1 min) compared for ECL(39.7+/-21.7 min)(p<0.05). No statistically significant difference were found in complications and failure between both groups. Insufficient fragment was most common cause of failure in both groups(1.8% for EML versus 2.4% for ECL). Gross hematuria were noted 26.4% of patient treated with EML and 26.6% of those treated with ECL.
CONCLUSIONS
The EML has a little advantages over the ECL in terms of total success rate, but ECL has its advantage in mean and total treatment time. Ultimately, these two contemporary energy sources are acceptable. They are equally efficacious, judging from single center treatment and follow-up criteria.

Keyword

Electromagnetics; Electroconductive; Urinary calculi

MeSH Terms

Electromagnetic Phenomena
Follow-Up Studies
Hematuria
Humans
Lithotripsy
Magnets*
Retreatment
Shock*
Urinary Calculi

Reference

1. Chaussy C, Schuller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984. 23:59–66.

2. Tiselius HG. Anaesthesia-free in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of ureteral stones. J Urol. 1991. 146:8–12.

3. Rassweiler J, Henkel TO, Kohrmann KU, Potempa D, Junemann KP, Alken P. Lithotripter technology: present and future. J Endourol. 1992. 6:1–3.

4. Elhilali MM, Stoller ML, McNamara TC, Morehouse DD, Wolf JS Jr, Keeler LL Jr. Effectiveness and safety of the Dornier compact lithotriptor: an evaluative multicenter study. J Urol. 1996. 155:834–838.

5. Flam TA, Bourlion M, Thiounn N, Saporta F, Chiche R, Dancer P, et al. Electroconductive lithotripsy: principles, experimental data, and first clinical results of the Sonolith 4000. J Endourol. 1994. 8:249–255.

6. Mobley TB, Myers DA, Grine WB, Jenkins JM, Jordan WR. Low energy lithotripsy with the Lithostar: treatment results with 19,962 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1993. 149:1419–1424.

7. Srivastava A, Ahlawat R, Kumar A, Kapoor R, Bhandari M. Management of impacted upper ureteral calculi: results of lithotripsy and percutaneous litholapaxy. Br J Urol. 1992. 70:252–257.

8. Cass AS. Ureteral stenting with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 1992. 39:446–448.

9. Yang SC, Park DS, Lee JM. Major factors influencing on the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 1994. 35:265–271.

10. Newman RC, Finlayson B. New delvelopment in ESWL. AUA Update Series. 1988. 7:50–55.

11. Schmiedt E, Chaussy C. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of kidney and ureteral stones. Urol Int. 1984. 39:193–198.

12. Politis G, Griffith DP. ESWL stone-free efficacy based upon stone size and location. World J Urol. 1987. 5:255–258.

13. Shabsigh R, Gleason MJ, Griffith DP. The benefits of stenting on a more-or-less routine basis prior to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am. 1998. 15:493–497.

14. Yang SC, Suh DS. Clinical experience of ureteral stone by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 1991. 32:254–258.

15. Kim SC, Moon YT. Experience with EDAP LT02 extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in 1363 patients: comparison with results of LT01 SWL in 1586 patients. J Endourol. 1997. 11:103–111.

16. Virgili G, Vespasiani G, Mearini E, Di Stasi SM, Micali F. Extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy: experience in 930 patients. J Endourol. 1992. 6:309–314.

17. Lee JH, Lee CH, Kim JI, Chang SG. Treatment effects of piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy (EDAP LT01 & LT02): experience of 5,000 cases. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:216–220.

18. Sheir KZ, Madbouly K, Elsobky E. Prospective randomized comparative study of the effectiveness and safety of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors. J Urol. 2003. 170:389–392.

19. Matin SF, Yost A, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a comparative study of electrohydraulic and electromagnetic units. J Urol. 2001. 166:2053–2056.

20. Kim HS, Kim YG. Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) using Dornier MPL 9200X lithotriptor. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:430–435.

21. Tailly GG. In situ SWL of ureteral stones: comparison between an electrohydraulic and an electromagnetic shockwave source. J Endourol. 2002. 16:209–214.

22. Lee GB, Rho J, Jang DS. Clinical experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with the Dornier Compact Delta®. Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:139–144.

23. Nabi G, Baldo O, Cartledge J, Cross W, Joyce AD, Lloyd SN. The impact of the Dornier Compact Delta lithotriptor on the management of primary ureteric calculi. Eur Urol. 2003. 44:482–486.

24. Jang SJ, Kang DI, Choi SH. Comparative analysis of Extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptor: Dose sonolith praktis have any advantage over EDAP LT-01? Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:1272–1277.

25. Kinsui H, Nomura H, Oikawa T, Hamano S, Suzuki N, Tanaka M, et al. Electroconductive lithotripsy: clinical results of the Sonolith sigma. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1999. 45:601–604.

26. Seo JB, Seo YJ, Lee SD, Chung MK. Therapeutic experience of Domestic SDS-3000 Lithotriptor in 440 patients with urinary stone. Korean J Urol. 2001. 42:476–482.

27. Lee CH, Koh SK, Kim HJ. Experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with electroconductive lithotriptor (ECL, EDAP Sonolith Prakits) in 703 patient with urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 2005. 46:375–381.

28. Lee JT, Park DY, Chang DS. Experience of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with northgate SD-3 in 2500 patients of urinary calculi. Korean J Urol. 1997. 38:37–46.